The developed world must shoulder the vast majority of the cost of adapting to climate change

Current version: 30 Nov 2009 | 09:13 | nadia999

<< Older version | Newer version >>

All versions

Key

  • Text coloured Greenhas been added snce the previous version
  • Text marked red and striked-throughhas been deleted

Yes, because... the developed nations must pay for their sins

 

The entire climate situation has arisen due to irresponsible and fast paced development initiated by the developed nations since the industrial revolution. They have exploited the natural resources of nearly half the planet ( their homeland and colonies ) for their vested interests. In fact almost the entire developing world is a former colony of one developed nation or the other.

Hence when climate change has reached critical levels, its necessary that the developed nations take responsibility for the damage done by them and indulge in corrective measures worldwide, like they indulged in colonization worldwide a few centuries ago .

This is in response to the Counter Argument.

It is not the ends we are talking about, rather the means. The ends aren't as rose-coloured as you claim; either.How many deaths/diseases/poisons have spawned from industrialization? Every living thing on this planet has suffered gravely in the horrible way the industrialist-capitalist-bourgeoisie chose to grant wealth to the world, while widening the gap/resentment/hatred/angst between the rich and poor.

Invading another person's country and then exploiting brutally their wealth, their resources, murdering their people and destroying their culture is a sin enough in my books.

That apart whether knowingly or unknowingly, climate change is a direct effect of globalization and industrialization and should be taken care of by the ones responsible for it.

 

How can climate change be considered the developed world's 'sins'? For the vast majority of the time the developed world was belching out CO2 we had no idea what effect it had, is it a sin if it is believed to be good. Industrialisation indeed brought many benefits, we are many times richer, poverty rates have fallen 80% just since 1970[1] imagine how much poverty reduction there has been since industrialisation begain in the middle of the eighteenth century. There has been an similar reduction in desieses as we have found cures or drained malarial marshes, creates sewers etc.

So is industriallisation bad? should the developed world be blamed for industrialising and pulling many other areas along too (albeit later)?

  1. ^ http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15433